Re: i cant beleive
>>"Out of interest, do we have anyone in our embassies we shouldn't?"
Most of the upper levels of our own government?
4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
>>"Out of interest, do we have anyone in our embassies we shouldn't?"
Most of the upper levels of our own government?
>>"The charge was for not using a condom when the girls thought he was. That's some sort of crime there apparently!"
That certainly should be a crime. However, I think you have slightly misremembered the details.
>>"Actually, yes. That and contempt of court by jumping bail"
Something thousands do without any such level of expenditure on them by the government. Ergo, there is a different reason at play here. You cannot be so set upon blaming Assange that you refuse to acknowledge this.
>>"I used to have sympathy, but we've seen far braver, less weaselly whistleblowers (Manning, Snowden) making Assange apparent as the megalomaniac paranoid attention seeker he is"
One spending the next thirty-five years of her life in prison and the other exiled to Russia and quite probably never able to leave. Yes, trying to avoid these fates makes someone a "megalomaniac paranoid attention seeker", of course! Heaven forbid we entertain the idea of someone embarrassing the US government and get away with it. Only Hollywood-level sacrifices are worth dignifying. If someone wants to do something without being willing to die for it, well what kind of lame excuse for an activist is that?!!??
>>"If he is innocent then he will be fine"
>>"Did you ever think that they were also there for his protection too?"
Well, no, not really. The government doesn't spend £10 million to protect you or me when we're threatened by some vicious ex-partner or similar even when you can be pretty certain an attack is coming. So you think they'll spend it on protecting someone who is a major nuisance to them out of the goodness of their hearts? I mean just in case the Ecuadorian embassy gets stormed by attackers? Your argument is more based on the fact that you don't like him. If it's costing this much, just stop guarding him.
But oh wait, that would embarrass Britain in front of America when he gets away so lets carry on wasting millions. Can't have someone embarrass America publically and get away with it! And if anyone is daft enough to think that isn't the reason ask yourself if millions would have been spent on any regular person who was wanted just for questioning by another European country. If that were the real reason, they could have very easily had a couple of officers come over here and question him at a tiny fraction of the expense.
I'm fine with sites having ads on them (so long as they're not auto-playing video or horror of horrors include sound). In fact, I *want* El Reg to make a nice profit.
All that I object to is tracking. So where possible I block that without blocking the ads. This does devalue the ads very slightly perhaps, but it's what I'm willing to offer.
>>"Use Chrome... It's just been updated... No? Use IE or FF and get pOwned."
Did you even bother to take five seconds to research this? IE already has the latest version of FLASH included in its automatic updates. I just checked my copy here and it has the latest version number released by Adobe. Firefox is a simple update as you get the plugin direct from Adobe.
If anyone wants to quickly check whether they are up to date just go here:
It lists what version you have installed and what the latest version is on every platform.
>>"no one wants to adopt a new platform today that won't exist in five years time, condemning MS to continued failure away from their x86 home turf."
If you use the new Windows Runtime APIs, then your software would work fine on both the x86 Windows and the ARM version. It's a simple configuration option at compile time.
It does have Tracking Protection. That's part of IE11. Surprisingly, a lot of people simply don't know it exists. Swipe in from the left, click on Settings and Privacy and its in there as the top option, I think. You can add as many lists as you want including the one that Adblock itself uses.
Anyway, shame to see it go. It may have served its purpose in threatening Intel by showing that you actually could create a viable OS on ARM and MS were willing. It could have been more than that, though. I have a Surface 2 and find it a great device. Good as a tablet and I can do Office work on it quite comfortably when I want to. Great device.
>>Similarly, when Google and co do their analytics and tell their customers "next year is not going to see a rise in lamb burger demand" they are helping make the economy more efficient"
All of your post up to this point is supportable and reasonable. And then you make this giant leap from what you're talking about to Google's profiling of people being the same thing.
Worstall's argument pretty much goes wrong at this point: "And that's what leads to the spraying: the assumption being made that people who are trading something they don't value much for something they value more is a market failure."
Firstly, it remains a wrong thing for people to give away something valuable even if they don't realize its value. Witness any case of people being swindled out of something they didn't know was a precious antique, etc. Is their lack of awareness of its value relevant to whether it is right or wrong? I would say it is clearly not. Secondly, it assumes choice. Google probably has a very substantial profile on me by now because its tracking is implanted in much of the web. I'm faced with a choice of make major career-impacting decisions to give up the Web, expend large amounts of effort trying to fight all the tracking or accept that I am "trading" away something whether I want to or not.
And most things you trade, btw, you can eventually replace or get back. Privacy not so much.
Finally, I'm not much of one for arguing on principles, I'm more about practical effects. Such a degree of monitoring and personal profiling and normalization of loss of privacy is dangerous. Our current degree of freedom in the West is a historical blip in terms of human history. It can be lost again and such monitoring as this - and I know people with think this is hysterical paranoia but sadly it is actually true - is a very powerful weapon in taking that freedom away.
Oh please, forgive us for using phrases you don't approve of, grand[pa|ma]. We are young and foolish and haven't yet learnt that new phrases shouldn't enter the English language.
>>"Why not? That's been tried with the white causcasian male contingent by many US corporations, and it turned out that the ugly and the handsome had equal quotients that were utterly incompetent, so we might as well settle for the less painful to look upon (let's enjoy that form of discrimination until it too is banned). "
Well seeing as you want to support discrimination (looks, racial and sex - what you don't want to throw in orientation while you're at it?) then you need to brush up on your statistics. Assume your hypotheses to be correct - that incompetence is equally distributed between looks, race, sex, etc. You conclude that it is therefore irrelevant if you appoint based on one of those things. Statistically, that's invalid. In any sample where the relevant selection criteria are equally distributed without regard to other qualities, discrimination on those other qualities will reduce the proportion of competent people. Think it through - any inclusion of irrelevant selection criteria must be at the cost of relevant selection criteria. There are few things I like less than physical discrimination, but bad statistics is one of them. Well done you on getting the double.
>>"Wouldn't you rather we had a few Chippendales in Parliament?"
No, not really. Parliament is showbusiness enough without pandering to the cameras even more. It's a very supportable position that Nixon lost to Kennedy because television had become common. Al Gore reportedly lost (if you accept that he did) to G.W. Bush in significant part due to physical image. When he fell off a stage, his rating dropped several points. Are you sure you don't think your attitude is damaging?
>>"And judging by the Labour party, they are positively discriminating against nice looking women. Is that what you're in favour of?"
Well no, rather obviously from my point that looks should be irrelevant to such careers, I'm not. I think you could have worked that out from my first post.
>>"You have a point, but equally you knew what I meant."
I'll remember that next time I review someone's code. Doesn't compile, but I knew what he meant.
Tell you what, Ledswinger, lets start appointing CEOs based on looks - it does wonders for the world of music, after all.
Also, Dorian Gray was famed for being eternally youthful. You may not be saying what you're trying to say.
(Paris - so Ledswinger can look at something to resettle his nerves after the shock of a non-youthful woman).
What is the security message and do you get it with any other browser? Different browsers can very occasionally have differences in the certificate chain that cause security warnings on one but not the other. Alternately, if it's something like Third Party cookies or something there's probably a setting. What's the message? It's probably not a conspiracy.
>>"Tell me, as a Google shill, how much do you get paid in goods, services and/or cash?"
Nice - you can't even keep on the morale high-ground when the article starts you off up there!
Lots of people like Google's services and are fine with Google nosing through their life for saleable bits of info. I'm not one of them but even I recognize that someone can feel like that without having to be paid to think it. Really, unless someone has a *very* good reason to suggest that someone is paid to post, "shill" is not a word that should be thrown around.
Seems a reasonable use of the term to me. The shift in security mindset when you went from clients sitting on a LAN with few reasons to go "online" to everything is online by default, is a pretty fundamental change in world view, imo. No?
I can get it higher. Try this:
"Your neighbour or that person over there at the next table could be looking at your screen right now. See that little padlock icon at the bottom that is red? That means you're broadcasting what you're doing right now."
Make it personal. It might not be completely accurate but mostly people are using Wi-Fi these days so it's good enough. But the real problem that leads to people ignoring the warnings is because they simply don't know what they can actually do about it. A warning saying "bad things might be happening" is just clutter if it doesn't tell you how to fix it. So person wants to visit site X. They get a warning. What next? Don't go to site X or make an uninformed choice about whether the risk is worthwhile and carry on. They don't know what the risks actually are, warnings are routine and people mostly think it wont happen to them, so they go to the site anyway.
There are only two ways to fix this. Either make your browser refuse to use a site where the certificates mismatch, no "ignore this" button. Or get things to the point where it is so rare that people actually are spooked by such a warning.
I don't think the second is happening any time soon, though the first would be a massive impetus to bring about the second. I actually would be in favour of the first if public certificates weren't such a money-making racket.
>>"1. Saying that Professor XY wants to manipulate people to think that there is a man made climate change, does not mean that man made climate change does not exist (if I read the article correctly, that is the conclusion that the author is trying to manipulate readers to understand). "
I've just re-read the article. Nowhere does it say whether AGW is or isn't real. Every statement in this article on the subject directly relates to whether or not the survey says what the professor says it does. Here's one for you - re-read the article, see if you can find any part that says or implies what you say it does above, and if not, retract your statement.
Once one ceases to doubt that one's cause is right, all methods become acceptable.
>>"Very cute. Even assuming that was true, what's stopping the scientist from concluding at the end of the study "my research doesn't prove or otherwise support the IPCC/UNFCCC claims"? The funding is already used at that point, so there's no reason to lie."
Right or wrong about whether this is the case, your logic is faulty. Research scientists live from grant to grant and the previous one is a determinant on whether you get the next. Publish a paper that gets damned by your peers, your chance of the next grant is reduced.
>>"What is so incredulous about the mindset of most Microsoft dupes is that they forever denigrate Linux, BSD, Darwin based Apple OS X and all other Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) technology with incoherent drivel criticisms"
Assuming by "Microsoft dupes" you mean posters who defend MS products against criticism on these forums (as I often find myself doing, dogged being another and so on...), I actually don't recall any of us making "incoherent drivel criticisms" of OSS. On the contrary, I think most of us respect it. Want to back that up because to me that just sounds like manufacturing enemies.
If it were the Daily Mail they would have posted pictures of the unfortunate victims so that their readers could be suitably shocked at how someone could have posted them online.
The Daily Mail website is that most unusual of websites - a porn site that condemns porn.
@dan1980. I agree with you on both counts - that this is wrong and that buzzword legislation is generally a bad idea. In answer to your questions as to how one would deal with this legally you would probably find this could slip under harassment and related crimes relatively neatly. Yes, if you allowed your partner to take photos of you naked, it is still reasonable to argue that posting them on a porn site is a separate act to that. One does not need to conflate the two acts and therefore legislation becomes easier.
>>"The only thing they are actually saying is that unless the artist signs up to the new service terms then they'll stop paying the artist when someone else uses their content in an upload."
Isn't that thing actually quite a big thing? The artist in this case certainly seems to think so and should Google be able to force people to accept their terms or let them do what they want anyway?
The above is simply not true.
EDIT: I don't usually make such bald and unexplained posts, but in this case you have made an assertion that you cannot support - that copyright strength is irrelevant. What more is there to say other than that you can't back that up?
>>The same Boeing 747 is like shit on transporting sofa inside NY Manhattan area ..
I can read about six different computer languages and three human ones, and that was none of them. I'm sorry, but... what?
You make it sound like careless coding when it's actually design with good reasons behind it. If you don't agree with all that and think that browsers and OS's aren't growing closer and closer, just look at ChromeOS - that's an operating system that actually IS a browser.
In short: Nobody has ever successfully convinced Wall St. that they can't have their cake and eat it.
No, they need to reinvest in research, promotion and support. The endless short-termism of the market is a blight upon our civilization. They always want instant returns even at the cost of long-term investment. The reason is obvious - they can then take the profit and walk away and repeat with another company.
But to be long-term viable a company cannot pursue an endless strategy of raising net profit at whatever the cost. Though that's what investors like.
Well to him an Internet of Things includes people so maybe he doesn't see a difference between people and objects - they're all just an IP address to him. ;)
Talkie the Toaster counts as a new job in that case!
You can always find prophecies that are wrong and usually find prophecies that are right. Which you find depends mostly on whether you want to prove that people can't predict the future or that they can. One of the most prescient and horrifying books I ever read was Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and whilst dated today, it's still pretty solid in its analysis.
The introduction begins with a note that in the 20th Century we had two highly popular and successful dystopian novels both in contradiction to each other. One was Orwell's "1984". The other was Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". And Postman's book begins with the statement that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Eric Shmidt is currently making Neil Postman (and Aldous Huxley) both look like Hari Seldon. Substitute YouTube for Soma and we're there.
>>"I want to avoid that one... Really, the internet will disappear? Or is he saying it will hide in plain sight?"
More the principle that if you turn everything brown, you will no longer see "brown", it will be meaningless and no-one will think in terms of not-brown anymore. Schmidt's vision of the future is one where no-one sees the Internet because there's nothing that isn't "the Internet" - not cars, not fridges, not people not your children. Of course by "the Internet" he means his Internet where Google has access to all of that.
Remember that this is a person who said if you don't want people to know something you shouldn't do it and that Google was going to be the next Microsoft. If the thought of Nineties Microsoft with a complete profile of your life and friends doesn't terrify you, you have a great deal more trust in human nature than most and I suggest a good newspaper or history book to cure this.
Even opting out wont do it. The idea is to make everything so tightly-coupled that you can't meaningfully opt out of Google without basically disengaging from modern life. Even today, try blocking Google Analytics at the router-level and you will find that around a third of websites simply cease to load. They're all waiting for a response from Google telling them it's okay to go ahead.
Even just blocking Google itself let alone their analytics results in some strange effects. For quite some time I've been experiencing an odd glitch on Ars Technica where I can't click to show modded down comments. I thought it was a browser issue maybe. More recently a few other parts have stopped working causing me to investigate and it turns out that it's because my blocking of Google is breaking some of their scripts. Google is present on most sites and disengaging from Google is close to becoming impossible if you want to participate in modern life. Making it an arduous process to opt out is just the start of making it difficult to avoid tracking. The level of active effort required to avoid it is reaching absurd degrees.
>>"1 vote for Battleship. the film that is the very epitome of what is wrong in Hollywood"
Battleship is surprisingly watchable satire. You realize that no-where in the film did the crashed alien vessel initiate hostilities and despite their clearly superior firepower they always hold back from pressing their advantage each time the humans are forced to back off? I'm not even convinced the alien ship was a military vessel. The entire point of the film is that the humans are the aggressors attacking a damaged alien ship whose sole aim in the movie is to "phone home". They trot out all the American Military Hero tropes and film it from the action heroes' points of view, whilst at the same time making it clear that the humans are needlessly provoking war.
It's a brilliant indictment of the American military industrial complex and Hollywood war movies. I worry when I read posts like yours that people missed that and just took it as a straight action movie.
Charlie's Angels 2 is a hugely fun movie. I think perhaps you were expecting a serious action movie or just don't like anything that toys too much with realism. I adore that film.
I have separate accounts for Work and Personal. Microsoft already had one abortive approach to merge my Windows account with Skype and my phone with Skype and they got a lot of angry push-back.
The reason Lync is good and Skype is crap for business is that Lync actually supports group differentiation and different availabilities whilst Skype is approximately as advanced as a punch-card machine. Actually there are lots of other reasons why Lync is better than Skype but in this context that's the relevant one.
If Microsoft want to force Skype integration into my other devices and accounts, they can go to Hell.
>>"I build and support my own devices, and I suspect that MS will class this collection of bits as "the same device" only until I change the motherboard. To be fair, mobo (and thus CPU + RAM) changes I always fresh reinstall for anyway, but I'd like to be sure that Win10 will actually let me reinstall onto "this PC but with different CPU/mobo/RAM in" and not require I buy a new copy of the OS to do so. "
I'm going to make an educated guess and say you'll be out of luck. If you have the full-price version of Windows, you should be able to use that through as many rebuilds as you like. The cheaper OEM version is actually what is sold to resellers for putting on pre-built devices. It's just that many people buy those instead because they're cheaper. So if you get this upgrade and you're upgrading from a non-OEM version I expect that you'll be fine. But if, like most, you're upgrading from an OEM copy then the new version will be the same licence. Meaning you'll probably be able to get them to re-activate it by phone unless you're unlucky, but technically they might not and I wouldn't count on it.
Seems to be the modus operandi of most men... : (
>>"I'm sure that any of these companies could do far better if they just doubled their prices. Do you seriously think that it would have customers flocking to it, even if it were proven to be better?"
I'd be willing to pay around a 15% mark-up over their competitors if I knew it was better. If Vodafone was £20 a month and Three was £25 a month but I knew that I would get solid reliable service with Three, I would choose them. There is a market for quality.
I've so far gone through Orange (now EE), Three and Vodafone. None have been satisfactory. Orange probably had the best coverage in my area but messed up everything else and were pricier. Three's coverage wasn't great and nor was Vodafone's.
What we really need is a reliable set of metrics, publically and independent, so that we can more easily see who is best on service. If the government wanted to do something useful with the networks, gathering and publishing official statistics would be the single best thing they could do. Give people the ability to look and see that Vodafone is worst for coverage in the North West or whatever, and you would immediately see more investment by the companies.
Market competition fails when the customers cannot see which product is better because everything is anecdotal and geographically situational.
>>"This tablet is basically to fool idiots into locking them into Microsoft's new pay for services platform."
And what do you think Google giving away their OS for free is about? Charity?
Sadly I think the marketers realize there is a willingness to jump between the low-end and the high-end. Those who just want cheap will only buy based on that. Those who want better quality have generally been willing to leap up two price categories to get there, hence you don't see a smooth gradient of improvement across price points. It's geared towards different market segments baselines, instead.
I would imagine it is unlikely as this is a permanent sale of the OS. They usually do discounted upgrades to a new version for those that bought near enough to the new version coming out so probably you'll be able to get it for not too much. But one of the big things about Windows 10 that people seem to be excited about (don't know why) is that it's supposed to bring more focus back to traditional form-factors and as this is a tablet, Windows 8.1 seems fine on it to me (not that I don't think 8.1 is fine on Desktop, too). The other thing is that I think Windows 10 is going to be available under a rental model too, so I don't see the appeal of that for a cheap tablet, tbh.
Anyway, cheap upgrade probably. Free, unlikely.
>>"Android is also opensource, Google are the maintainers, but anyone can (and does) contribute."
Google have been turning more and more of the Android ecosystem closed source over time. It is harder and harder to contribute to Android without Google's approval every year. Have a read..
Google are the Microsoft of today. Remember when MS came up with that crappy .dat attachment for emails so that rival email clients would appear broken and when challenged always provided the excuse that they were simply providing a better and more secure system that others should comply with? Oh, and that it wasn't a problem because you could always turn it off (despite the fact that the point was that it caused problems for their competitors, not you). What does that remind you of? Oh yes, Google blocking Outlook (as per this article) because their system is "more secure", but you can always turn it off (as with .dat attachments) so it's fine. Oh, and it breaks Thunderbird, too.
Your naivety and trust in giant corporations is terrible.
>>"Does Linux brick things? And if you're a real "Linux hacker" you shouldn't be afraid of bricking things - and installing an OS "
When fiddling around with trying to install an OS on a device designed for something else, yes, there is a risk of bricking something. And that's not because of GNU/Linux. It's a tablet! You wipe the existing contents of the "drive" and fiddle with the boot partition you could well brick it long before you even get to the bit where you choose a new OS to install. That's why you want to do it on something cheap like this and not a Surface Pro 3 or something.
More helpfully, to the OP - it's an x86 device with full Windows (well the cheapo Bing version, anyway) so you should be able to disable Secure Boot (being able to do so is a requirement) and as an x86 device there's a strong chance you'll be able to get GNU/Linux installed and running so I say go for it. Touch screens are now supported in several of the modern OSs. Anything with Gnome 3.6.3 and up has a good chance of working. Much as I prefer KDE for desktop use, Gnome might be a better choice for touch screens unless KDE has improved on this recently. Hope that helps. Remember to post about your attempt so others can learn from it! Good luck!
I remember some research being done by the US army on drugs that would help dampen memory formation or emotive context. So if you've just bombed a village in Iraq, the pills help you feel less traumatized afterwards. Not sure whatever happened to that research but I can see something like this being picked up by the military. Especially if they can say it's for the good of soldiers which in the USA is pretty much an Advance Directly to Go ticket.
>>"And why was it impossible to him to keep quiet until Version 2.2.0-rc2 went live?"
I suspect because then they wouldn't get the "prestige" of having found two dangerous zero-day exploits. Probably saw it in the upcoming developer release, thought their chance of some press was going away, and announced it. Sad.
>>"For instance every single national scientific member delegate of the UN from every state - EVERY SINGLE ONE - acknowledges that global warming is happening and the humans are at least partially to blame. That's pretty conclusive to me."
Many of those you term "deniers" believe the same. Generally critics of AGW agree that the climate changes (of course it does!) and agree that humanity is bound to have some effect on that (again - of course it does). But they don't necessarily agree that human activity is the primary driver of climate change. Saying that people acknowledge that warming has happened and that humans are a factor is meaningless. Worse, it's a strawman that ignores what AGW-critics actually say.
>>"Science is never 100% sure. Even Newton has been proven to be wrong - however his equations are still good enough to get us to the moon and planets. That is the same kind of certainty that we have with global warming."
There are several people here who are making good and supported arguments for AGW. And then there's you who will cheerfully spout any hyperbolic rubbish because you think it's right to do so. No, AGW does not have the level of certainty that F=ma does. Not even the boldest of climatologists would make such ridiculous claims. Aside from the ad hominems and the dismissal of people who are skeptical as paid by the fossil fuels lobby, this is complete nonsense and you clearly just say whatever pops into your head that you think sounds good.
>>" As I say, even if global warming is wrong (and we all hope it is), the effect of getting more efficient (read cheaper) less polluting (read expensive that polluters don't pay for) energy that is available to many more people, is a good thing."
The thing is, I even agree that we should move away from fossil fuels - I am extremely pro-nuclear and nuclear is cleaner and doesn't result in us supporting nasty Middle Eastern regimes. But your reasoning is absurd. Things like wind turbines (the current darling of the "environmental" lobby (1)) are far more expensive than coal and gas and are demanding large subsidies from us to be viable. Nor are other energy sources inherently available to more people. Your argument that it is best to take costly measures just in case is flawed - as other people have pointed out. We could plough trillions into an asteroid defence system and maybe we should so we don't go the way of the dinosaurs. But then again maybe we shouldn't. There is a spectrum of cost vs. risk. Where does a cataclysmic meteor strike lie on that spectrum? Where do AGW counter-measures lie? Reasoned arguments can be made but all you do is argue that because there is a risk, counter-measures are necessary. That is flawed. Though I suppose if you believe that climate science is as certain as 9.8m/s/s you probably wont see that.
>>So irrespective of whether AGW is correct, it looks like a win-win situation and at worst a lose-win.
I know what you're saying, and have argued similar myself - we should be moving off fossil fuels but there are right ways and wrong ways to do it and panicked hyperbolic reactions such as yours lead to the wrong-way.
(1) I put environmentalist in quotes because there are many of us who consider ourselves environmentalists but are excluded from having a voice because whenever we try to protest or vote for the Green party, Friends of the Earth or similar is ready to use our voice to push an anti-nuclear agenda. Every environmental cause gets co-opted by these groups.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018